Download Comparative Analysis of German and Anglo

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
May 2013, Vol. 3, No. 5
ISSN: 2222-6990
Comparative Analysis of German and Anglo-Saxon
Business Culture
Hamburg Andrea
University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, International Business Department, Romania
Abstract
Two premises built the starting point for following study: that cultural background,
cultural conditioning have a considerable influence upon business area at one hand and at the
other hand that nations having common origins are likely to present similar cultural
conditioning. The first hypothesis found proving in the works of theoreticians and practitioners
like E.T. Hall, Geert Hofstede, Richard Gesteland and others dealing with the problem of
people’s “mental programming” called culture and with cultural differences around the world.
For the second premise we wanted to analyze three cultures having common Germanic roots
namely the German, British (focusing on the English component of it) and American cultures
through the prism of their concept of time, relation to business, working and communicational
style, structure of management, attitude towards hierarchy and interpersonal distance
including physical contact.
As the results of our comparative analysis showed above mentioned business cultures
had very much in common regarding attitude to time, business and interpersonal distance but
in the other segments they presented considerable differences as well.
Taking all aspects into consideration the similarities deriving from their common
Germanic origin offer the three cultures in question some advantages in business relations but
the essential differences they present should be minded, too to avoid failure in deal making.
Keywords: cultural conditioning, intercultural competence, cultural differences, mental
programming
1. Introduction
Following study sets out from two premises, that the influence of cultural background,
cultural conditioning upon business area is not to be neglected at one hand and at the other
hand that nations having common origins are likely to have similar cultural conditioning. From
the 1960s on there are quite many researchers1 and studies dealing with human’s “mental
programming” (Hofstede, 1996) called culture and the differences occurring in people’s vision
upon things, reaction or attitude towards the same circumstances. Of course different people
see things differently but these differences are not only based on individual background, they
1
such as Edward T. Hall, Geert Hofstede, Fons Trompenaars, Richard Gesteland and others
481
www.hrmars.com/journals
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
May 2013, Vol. 3, No. 5
ISSN: 2222-6990
may be conditioned collectively as well. This collective cultural conditioning should neither have
absolute validity ‒ one may leave space for individual variations i.e. he/she should avoid
stereotyping in its negative sense ‒ nor be neglected because it helps develop a proactive
attitude supported by the presumption that representatives of a culture might have a certain
vision upon things while people with another cultural background might have an opposite
reaction to it. By developing this proactive attitude people can do much to prevent failures in
the business area caused by the lack of intercultural competence.
In this study we try to analyze three cultures under the aspects of their every day and
business life. The three cultures having in common their Germanic roots are the German, the
British2 and American one, the latter two as representatives of Anglo-Saxon cultures. We talk
about common Germanic origins as present English population is the result of the mixture and
interaction of following three elements: Breton, ‒ the native population of the British Isles ‒
Anglo-Saxon ‒ invading Germanic tribes ‒ and Norman ‒ invaders meaning French influence for
more than two hundred years. Knowing this and the fact that among the historical settlers of
America there were English, Irish, Dutch (Germanic population, too) and other nations, no more
explanations are necessary to prove American culture’s partial Germanic origins. As all three
cultures during their history were subject of different influences, they experienced different
ways and circumstances of development, they might present considerable differences in their
cultural conditioning. The aim of following study is to see to what extent they are similar due to
the common origin and in which segments they show important cultural differences if there are
any.
When dealing with cultural differences there are some well defined aspects according to
which one may compare cultures with each other. These criteria vary of course from researcher
to researcher but a concise synthesis of them may include following categories: concept of time
and time management; relation to business; hierarchy, structure of management; attitude,
working style (formality/informality); communication style and physical contact, gestures.
Present study will analyze German, British (English) and American culture along the above
mentioned criteria.
2. Comparative Analysis of German and Anglo-Saxon Business Culture
2.1. Concept of time and time management
Due to the research work of E.T. Hall and others nowadays we know that cultures may
have a very different attitude to time and perception of it. While in some cultures everything is
dominated by time, people plan their actions, live and act according to a certain schedule, ‒
these are the so-called monochronic cultures (Hall, The Silent Language, 1959, based on Hidasi,
2004) or rigid time cultures (Gesteland, 1997) ‒ for other nations time is just a framework to
events, it has no dominating rule, delays are natural as everything is fluid ‒ polychronic cultures
(Hall) or fluid time cultures (Gesteland). In monochronic cultures work process, meetings,
2
in following study we focus on its English component
482
www.hrmars.com/journals
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
May 2013, Vol. 3, No. 5
ISSN: 2222-6990
negotiations take place according to an established plan, problems are discussed item by item,
one topic at a time and nobody moves on until the previous item has not been solved.
Representatives of such sequential cultures always concentrate on the current problem or
activity, thus work meetings, discussions are unlikely to be disturbed by external factors. But in
the majority of world’s cultures things do not work like this. Problems are tackled in a holistic
way with no segmentation into subtopics or steps to be followed. People engage in more things
simultaneously, they might have a conversation with a colleague, employee or collaborator,
answer a phone call and react to the secretary’s notice at the same time.
Of course on the large scale between the two extremes there are many variations, so
cultures present different hues of rigid or fluid time perception but the huge differences in their
approach to problems and in people’s attitude to time may cause embarrassing moments and
discomfort for those with no training in handling them.
Analyzing under this aspect the three cultures in question we can assert that their
concept of time is very similar; people of all three cultures act sequentially according to plans
made in advance, deadlines and timetables are generally respected in the spirit of the well
known slogan “time is money”. However in a more exact ranking of flexibility/rigidity in their
attitude to time American and German cultures seem to be slightly more scheduled than British
one3.
2.2. Relation to business
Observing the structure, course, length of negotiations and people’s attitude to all of
these aspects practitioners and theoreticians came to the conclusion that there are cultures
where most important in negotiations is the deal itself, that is why representatives of such
cultures like discussions straight to the point without any digressions and delay. Their meetings
are oriented to the objective number one i.e. making the deal and signing the contract, so
negotiations do not last very long. After the work is done they may engage in superficial, light
conversations on small talk topics like weather, family, hobbies, travelling. Richard Gesteland
called above mentioned cultures deal-focused ones, while Geert Hofstede’s fifth cultural
dimension, the short-term orientation of a culture, points to a great extent to the same
features i.e. concentration on the current benefit and no further interest in deeper, lasting
relationship. On the opposite end of the scale one may find cultures with long-term orientation
(Hofstede, 1996) or relationship-focus (Gesteland, 1997). For these societies the main point is
not the deal itself but developing and building up a long lasting good relationship. Therefore
they need to get acquainted with the business partner to gain trust in him/her because mutual
trust lies on the base of strong, lasting relations. In consequence negotiations may last for more
days and start with small talk for the sake of getting to know each other better. As time goes by
and trust increases business people of this second type come to the effective topic of the
based on Barry Tomalin’s and Mike Nicks’ figures in: Tomalin, B., Nicks M., The World’s
Business Cultures and How to Unlock Them, Thorogood Publishing, London, 2007, pdf.doc
3
483
www.hrmars.com/journals
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
May 2013, Vol. 3, No. 5
ISSN: 2222-6990
meeting. To get in contact with people coming from such cultures one may need quite often an
intermediary person with prestige in the eyes of one’s would-be business partner and having
good relations to him/her.
Related to their scheduled character and rigid time perception the cultures analyzed in
present study belong to the category of deal-focused cultures however once more German and
American society being according to our opinion slightly more interested in business compared
to relationship than British one.
2.3. Hierarchy, structure of management
The problem of hierarchy is dealt with beside others in Geert Hofstede’s research work.
When putting up his cultural dimensions by measuring power distance he had hierarchy and
people’s attitude to it in sight. In cultures with high power distance index (PDI) hierarchy is
respected and its reason for existence never disputed however it is rarely based on competence
or merits but very often is the result of political or financial position. On the opposite side are
situated cultures with low power distance index where hierarchy has no great importance and
due to a flat leadership style the organizational chart of the company is flat as well. Some
cultures may present an interesting mixture of the two aspects i.e. however they show a rather
low power distance, they still owe respect to hierarchy. In this case high position is merit-based,
rooted in qualification, competence and performance.
This is the explanation for German culture’s rather low PDI (35 according to Hofstede)
and its nevertheless hierarchy based company structure on one hand and at the other a much
flatter leadership style in American and British culture associated with a power distance index
of 40 in the first case and 35 in the latter one. To a certain extent British culture reproduces the
apparent contradiction in German society. UK’s power distance index is lower than the
American one and still British respect hierarchy a bit more than Americans do. Comparing
leadership style and management American companies are very different from European ones
adopting a conservative continental posture. While in America sales people may occupy high
positions in the company’s hierarchy, even more a considerable part of the board of directors
consists of former practitioners, in other words business men as well as marketing and sales
experts as a proof of American empirical approach, in a German company this would be rather
unimaginable. Their culture having a more theoretical and scientific orientation and being built
on accuracy and precision, responsible positions are distributed to engineers and technocrats.
As Germans rely on the quality of their products as a principal sales factor they do not lay
adequate emphasis on marketing and expertise in sales; that is why American management
proves to be superior to European one in general and particularly to German management
style.
2.4. Attitude, working style
This aspect partially derives from the importance given to hierarchy in a culture. At this
point we would like to analyze the extent of formality or informality at the nations in question.
484
www.hrmars.com/journals
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
May 2013, Vol. 3, No. 5
ISSN: 2222-6990
Having the flattest leadership style of all three American culture characterizes through a high
degree of informality. People are likely to call each other by their first names even in such
official relations like communication inside and outside the company, negotiations etc. In an
informal medium like this titles are not usual and have no considerable importance. In great
lines the same is valid for British culture too, while German people situate themselves on the
opposite edge of the scale. Their degree of formality is legendary as in German culture relations
are guided by hierarchy. It is not unusual that work colleagues don’t tutoyer each other, they
remain at the level of the formal “Sie”. Therefore when collaborating or negotiating with
American or British teams, to be in tune with their informality, German business men may
agree with the temporal use of first names and you (“du”) and return to the initial state when
arrived back home. In this formal medium only persons situated higher in hierarchy ‒ not
necessarily the elder ones ‒ may have the initiative of getting on the first-name terms with each
other. Not only hierarchy but scientific and honorary titles ‒ obtained due to hard work,
achievement and appreciation ‒ also enjoy respect in German society that is why their use in
formulas of address is almost compulsory while omitting them is seen as a serious mistake.
2.5. Communication style
One of the most complex segments in our analysis is communication as it has many
components such as: verbal (tone, intonation, semantic and linguistic aspects) and non-verbal
or paraverbal ones (gesture, facial expression, eye contact, posture, conversational gap etc.).
Concerning the semantic aspect of communication it should be mentioned that there are
cultures where message is conveyed by words and these have concrete meanings. In these
cultures people mean what they express verbally. Their communication being independent of
context they belong to the category of the so-called low context cultures (Hall, The Silent
Language, 1959 based on Hidasi, 2004). On the other hand the majority of world’s cultures
communicate in another way. Here messages depend to a great extent on the context they
were put in, so words almost lose their role of conveying message. In this medium of high
context communication (Hall, 1959) verbal message is just the peak of the iceberg the largest
part of it being under the surface i.e. lying in conventions, convictions, unuttered agreements,
in one word context.
Strongly related to the context-dependency of communication is its tone. Cultures of
low context communication tend to adopt a direct communication style, they express in a
straight, unveiled manner what they really mean, while high context cultures prefer an indirect
communication with euphemistic paraphrases. For the representatives of the latter culture
type people following a direct communication style may seem to be rude however this is not
the case, it is just their way to express things.
Being Western cultures all the three analyzed in present study belong to the category of
low context cultures in comparison with Asian societies, although British people’s
communication is situated closer to the high context edge of the scale compared to the other
two nations. That is why Germans’ and Americans’ communicating in a much more direct way
than British are used to may be interpreted by the latter ones as lack of good manners or
485
www.hrmars.com/journals
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
May 2013, Vol. 3, No. 5
ISSN: 2222-6990
arrogance and at the other way round Germans and Americans may feel embarrassed by British
people’s vague formulations. Due to their direct style Germans express negative feelings, direct
criticism concerning something without any problem and with no intention of insulting. In the
same situation in accordance with their cultural type British would resort to such roundabout
formulations as “Do you think this is the best solution?” Surprisingly Americans ‒ generally
straightforward in their communication ‒ would also adopt a more veiled style considering a
“good try” even ideas of no use and thanking everybody for their humble contribution. Thus
high or low context communication is to a great extent a matter of verbal/linguistic codes used
which semantically can be very different from their pragmatic aim. Low context cultures
adopting a direct communication style will not avoid praising something if it is worth doing so,
while people communicating between the lines will tend to express verbally maybe the quite
opposite of what they mean or feel. Handing over a bottle of quality wine low context Germans
and Americans would say: “Take please this bottle of wine, it is an excellent brand”, Britons in
their ambiguous way would resort to understatement, while people in even more high context
cultures such as the Japanese would be glad to hear about the same wine “This is not a very
good brand, I am afraid, you may not like it.”
Concerning the non-verbal part of communication there are slight differences among
the three cultures in question Americans being moderately expressive in contrast to rather
reserved British and Germans. Actually there is only one segment of paraverbal communication
presenting noticeable differences and that is kinesics. Americans are more likely to make a
moderate use of body language than Germans or British are. As a guarantee of honest
intentions eye contact plays in all three cultures an important role. However we can speak
about a moderate oculesics opposite to Arab or Mediterranean gaze behaviour. Their tolerance
of conversational gaps is similar and in all three cultures people communicate by taking turns to
avoid conversational overlaps.
2.6. Physical contact, gestures
Physical contact is an important aspect when speaking about cultural differences. In
some cultures (Latin, Arab, Mediterranean cultures) haptics i.e. touch behaviour plays a
considerable role in human relations even in the official segment. Representatives of these
expressive cultures consider a short interpersonal distance (proxemics – Hall, The Hidden
Dimension, 1966 based on Popa, 2006) hugs, patting one’s shoulder, kisses on the face
absolutely normal. In more reserved cultures interpersonal distances less than three feet
(approximately 1 meter) are interpreted as invading one’s personal sphere. In this respect we
consider American culture out of the three the most tolerant of physical contact and less
interpersonal distance, while German people in accordance with their formality the most
reluctant to them. In our opinion regarding proxemics British culture is situated somewhere
between the two. Generally speaking Anglo-Saxon and Germanic cultures are considered to be
reserved ‒ in the eyes of Mediterranean people even “cold fish” ‒ in their contacts.
486
www.hrmars.com/journals
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
May 2013, Vol. 3, No. 5
ISSN: 2222-6990
3. Conclusions
We started present study with two premises out of which the first one didn’t need
proving as from the middle of the past century onwards due to the numerous works dealing
with culture and intercultural relations it is an undisputable fact that consciousness of cultural
differences and cultural sensitivity play key roles in business success. Concerning the second
hypothesis: that cultures having some common roots may have similar cultural conditioning,
the following statements can be made. As the results of our comparative analysis show German
and Anglo-Saxon (American and British) business culture have very much in common; all of
them are business oriented, time-conscious, not very fond of physical contact, too little
interpersonal distance but at the same time they present considerable differences as well. For a
concise, schematic presentation of their features in the investigated segments see Table 1
below.
Table nr. 1 Comparative Analysis of German and Anglo-Saxon Business Culture
Cultural type and features
German culture
Concept of time and time
management:
1. monochronic/rigid time monochronic
cultures:
- actions according to plans;
- handling issues item by
item;
- time having a dominant
role in people’s lives;
- importance of punctuality,
schedules and deadlines;
2. polychronic/fluid time
cultures:
no
planning
and
schedules;
- time is a fluid entity, just a
framework to events;
- holistic way of handling
problems;
- simultaneous actions
Relation to business:
1. deal-focus:
- deal is the keyword in deal-focused
business;
- short, straight to the topic
negotiations;
487
British culture
American culture
monochronic
monochronic
deal-focused
deal-focused
www.hrmars.com/journals
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
May 2013, Vol. 3, No. 5
ISSN: 2222-6990
- superficial small talk after
the deal is made;
2. relationship-focus:
long-lasting,
good
relation-ship is the keyword
in business;
- importance of getting
acquainted with one’s
business
partner
and
gaining trust;
- long negotiation process
with predominant small
talk, the effective topic
being left to the end of
negotiations
Hierarchy, structure of
management:
1. great power distance:
- importance of hierarchy,
status;
- status is often based on
financial or political power
and not on merits and
performance;
- vertical management
2. little power distance:
- egalitarian approach;
- flat management
Attitude, working style:
1. formality:
- no first-name terms;
- importance given to
status and titles (scientific
and honorary)
2. informality:
- first-name terms;
- no importance given to
status and titles
Communication style:
1. high context, indirect
communication:
- message not conveyed by
words;
488
- despite of little
power
distance
(PDI
35,
see
Hofstede) respect
for
merit-based
hierarchy
- vertical management (engineers,
technocrats,
theoreticians in the
board of directors)
- little power
distance (PDI 35)
- flat leadership
style,
nevertheless
more respect for
hierarchy than in
American society
formal
informal
formulas
of
address
contain
name and titles
- no first-name
terms even among
work colleagues
little
power
distance (PDI 40)
- flat leadership
style
(former
practitioners,
marketing
and
sales experts in the
board of directors)
very informal
low context, direct more
high low context, direct
communication
context, indirect communication (no
(even
direct communication
direct expression of
www.hrmars.com/journals
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
May 2013, Vol. 3, No. 5
ISSN: 2222-6990
- communication depend- expression
ing on context, lying in criticism)
conventions,
unuttered
agreements,
etc.,
background knowledge is
necessary;
vague
formulations,
communication
in
a
euphemistic manner
2. low context, direct
communication:
- message conveyed by
words;
- direct, straightforward
expression (people say
what they think and they
mean what they say);
apparent
rudeness,
arrogance in the eyes of
people
with
indirect
communication style
Physical contact, gestures:
1. reserved cultures:
moderate
use
of reserved
paraverbal
means
of
communication
(facial
expression, body language,
gestures, eye contact);
- no physical contact;
large
interpersonal
distance
2. expressive cultures:
- often and quite noticeable
use of paraverbal means of
communication (gestures,
expression of feelings, eye
contact etc.);
- active haptics (touch
behaviour - hugs, patting
on one’s shoulder, kisses
on the face);
short
interpersonal
distance
489
of
criticism)
reserved
moderately
expressive
www.hrmars.com/journals
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
May 2013, Vol. 3, No. 5
ISSN: 2222-6990
Source: personal creation based on the findings of literature in the domain
Now let’s see some basic differences as well. While in American and British culture
hierarchy does not play an important role, consequently people are informal, after a short time
on first-name terms with each other even in their official relations, in German society
dominated by merit-based hierarchy this would be unimaginable and unacceptable as
interpersonal relations develop under the sign of formality. On the other hand there are
segments ‒ communication style for instance ‒ where American and German culture present
similarities in contrast to British culture. Germans’ and Americans’ direct, straight
communication creates for Brits excelling in ambiguous formulations some difficulties and vice
versa. However in their attitude to criticism Americans resemble the British more than the
Germans.
Taking all aspects into consideration the similarities deriving from their common
Germanic origin are for the analyzed three cultures of great help when dealing with each other
but their representatives should mind also the essential differences they present to avoid
putting at risk the success of their business relations.
References
Gesteland, R. (1997), Cross-Cultural Business Behavior, Handelshojkolens Forlag, Copenhagen,
[Online], http://www.zmk.unifreiburg.de/ss2000/texts/gesteland(e).htm, accessed 14 April
2010.
Hidasi, J. (2004), Interkulturális kommunikáció, Scolar Kiadó.
Hofstede, G. (1996), Managementul structurilor multiculturale. Software-ul gândirii,
Economic Publishing House, Bucharest.
Ionescu, Gh. Gh. (1996), Dimensiunile culturale ale managementului, Economic Publishing
House, Bucharest.
Popa, I. (2006), Negocierea comercială internaţională, Economic Publishing House, Bucharest.
Tomalin, B., Nicks M., (2007), The World’s Business Cultures and How to Unlock Them,
Thorogood Publishing, London, pdf.doc
490
www.hrmars.com/journals